[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D878445.6090709@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:00:53 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, UV: Fix NMI handler for UV platforms
On 03/21/2011 07:43 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
...
>
> I think Jack might need to setup priority for his notifier, like
>
> static struct notifier_block uv_dump_stack_nmi_nb = {
> .notifier_call = uv_handle_nmi,
> .priority = NMI_LOCAL_HIGH_PRIOR+1,
> };
>
> so it would be called before perf nmi. Don, am I right?
>
> Since for perf nmis we do have
>
> static __read_mostly struct notifier_block perf_event_nmi_notifier = {
> .notifier_call = perf_event_nmi_handler,
> .next = NULL,
> .priority = NMI_LOCAL_LOW_PRIOR,
> };
>
I must admit I've missed the fact that Jack has tried NMIs priorities, right?
x86_platform_ops seems to be a cleaner indeed (btw I think p4 pmu kgdb issue
is exactly the same problem) but same time this might end up in over-swelled
ideas behind this small code snippet. Dunno. Probably we need some per-cpu
system status for nmi reasons other than unknown nmis...
--
Cyrill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists